TABLE OF AUTHORITIES— Continued
Page
Fairmont Creamery Co. V. Minnesota, 275 U.S. 70
( 1927) 41
Farr V. Pitchess, 522 F.2d 464 (9th Cir. 1975),
cert, denied, 427 U.S. 912 (1976) _. 17,20
Finney v. Hutto, 548 F.2d 740 (8th Cir.), cert.
granted, 46 U.S.L.W. 3261 (U.S. Oct. 18, 1977).. 39
FitzpatHck v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976) 39,41,42
Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965) _. 28, 33
Fowler v. Alexander, 478 F.2d 694 (4th Cir.
1973) _ ~ 40
Franklin V. Shields, No. 75-2057, slip op. (4th Cir.,
Sept. 19, 1977) _ 37
Gates V. Collier, 559 F.2d 241 (5th Cir. 1977) 37, 39
Goss V. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) _ 30
HeUer V. New York, 413 U.S. 483 (1973) 28, 29, 30
Herbert v. Lando, No. 77-7142, slip op. (2d Cir.
Nov. 7, 1977) _..- 15, 23
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) 39, 40, 41, 42
In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 486 F.2d 85 (3d
Cir. 1973) ..„_ 18
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath,
341 U.S. 123 (1951) _. 30
Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966) _ 42
LaMont V. PostTnaster General, 881 U.S. 301
(1965) - 14
LaRaza Unida v. Volpe, 57 F.R.D. 94 (N.D. Cal.
1972), aff'd, 488 F.2d 559 (9th Cir. 1973) ._ 38
Lee Art Theatre, Inc. V. Virginia, 392 U.S. 636
(1968) _- 25
Lincoln County V. Luning, 133 U.S. 529 (1890) 39
Londoner V. Denver, 210 U.S. 373 (1908) ^ 30
Kleindienst V. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972) 14
Marcus V. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717 (1961)— 11, 27,
28
Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943).. 14
Martinez Rodriauez V. Jiminez, 551 F.2d 877 (1st
Cir. 1977) 37, 39, 44
McNahb V. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943).... 26
Mills V. Alabaina, 384 U.S. 214 (1966) 14,27
Morgan V. State, 337 So.2d 951 (Fia. 1976) 20
IV
42-190 O - 79 - 12
172
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES— Continued
Page
NAACP V. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) 25
Nebraska Press Association V. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539
(1976) _ 9, 27
Newman V. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S.
400 (1968) _ „ 34
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254
(1964) 14, 27
Nortkcross v. Board of Education, 412 U.S. 427
(1973) _ __ 34
Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 182 (1970) 42
Pacifica Foundation, Inc. v. Davis, No. 117257
(Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cty., filed Mar. 12, 1975).. 12, 18
Pell V. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974) 15, 16, 32
Person V. Association of the Bar, 554 F.2d 534 (2d
Cir.), cert, denied, 46 U.S.L.W. 3293 (U.S. Oct.
81, 1977) _ ._ : 40
Pierson V. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) 39, 42
A Quantity of Books V. Kansas, 378 U.S. 205
(1964) 27, 28, 30
Rice V. Sioux City Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc.,
349 U.S. 70 (1955) 19
Roadenw. Kentucky, 413 U.S. 496 (1973) 25
Rosato V. Superior Court, 51 Cal. App. 3d 190, 124
Cal. Rptr. 427 (1975), cert, denied, 427 U.S. 912
(1976) - 20
Sazbe V. Washington Post Co., 417 U.S. 843
(1974) 16, 17, 22
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974) ._ 34,42
Seals V. Quarterly County Court, 562 F.2d 390 (6th
Cir. 1977) 37, 39, 44
Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 (1960) 31
Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S.
546 (1975) 28
Stanford V. Texas, 379 U.S. 476 (1965) 10,25
State V. St. Peter, 132 Vt. 266, 315 A.2d 254
(1974) 20
Svnnn v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Educa-
tion. 402 U.S. 1 (1971) 32
173
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES— Continued
Page
Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951) 39,42
Timmerman V. Brown, 528 F.2d 811 (4th Cir.
1975) .„ 40
United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323 (1950) 10
United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967) 31
United States V. Thirty-Seven Photographs, 402
U.S. 363 (1971) _ _ 25
United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) 25
Universal AmiLseinent Co. V. Vance, 559 F.2d 1286
(5th Cir. 1977) 40,44
Wheaton v. Knefel, 562 F.2d 550 (8th Cir. 1977).. 37
Wood V. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 (1975) _ 39,41,42
STATUTES:
Civil Rights Act of 1964:
42 U.S.C. §2000a-3(a) 34
Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976:
42 U.S.C. § 1988 _ pasaim
Emergency School Aid Act of 1972:
20 U.S.C. § 1617 34, 36
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968:
18 U.S.C. § 2510-20 _ -.- 26
42 U.S.C. § 1983 passim
Cal. Evid. Code §§ 901, 1070 (Deering) (Supp.
1977) 12, 13, 18
Cal. Penal Code §§ 69, 148 (Deering) (Supp.
1977) 19
Ala. Cods tit. 7, § 370 (1960) 12
Alaska Stat. § 09.25.150 (Supp. 1971) 12
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2237 (Supp. 1971-72) 12
Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-917 (1964) 12
Del. Code tit. 10, §§ 4320-4326 (1974) „ 13
111. Rev. Stat. ch. 51, 5§ 111-119 (Supp. 1977) 13
VI
174
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES— Continued
Page
O''
Ind. Code Ann. § 34-3-5-1 (1976) 12
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 421.100 (1969) 12
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 45:1451-: 1454 (Supp.
1972) _ „ _ 12
Md. Ann. Code art. 35, § 2 (1971) 12
Mich. Comp. Laws § 767.5a (Supp. 1956) 12
Mich. Stat. Ann. §28.945(1) (1954) 12
Minn. Stat. §§ 595.021-.025 (Supp. 1977) 13
Mont. Rev. Codes Ann. §93-601-2 (Cum. Supp.
1977) _ _ 12
Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 20:144-: 147 (1974) 13
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 49.275 (as amended in 1975) 12
N.J. Rev. Stat. §§ 2A:84A-21-29 (Supp. 1972-73 as
amended Oct. 5, 1977) 12, 13
N.M. Stat. Ann. § 220-1-12.1 (1973) __ 13
N.Y. Civ. Rights Law (McKinney) § 79-H (1973) .. 13
N.D. Cent. Code § 31-01-06.2 (1976) 13
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2739.12 (1954) 13
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, §§ 385.1-.3 (Supp. 1977) 13
Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 44.510-.540 (1973) 13
Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 28, § 330 (Purdon) (1977 Cum.
Supp.) - _.- 13
R. L Gen. Law §§ 9-19.1-1 to -3 (Supp. 1977) 13
Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 24.113-.115 (Supp. 1976) _ 13
LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS:
S. Rep. No. 1011, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (1976) passim
H.R. Rep. No. 1558, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (1976) 34, 35,
36,43
121 Cong. Rec. (daily ed. Aug. 1, 1975) 34
122 Cong. Rec. (daily ed. Sept. 21, 1976) 33, 34
122 Cong. Rec. (daily ed. Sept. 22, 1976).. 33, 34
122 Cong. Rec. (daily ed. Sept. 23, 1976) 33
122 Cong. Rec. (daily ed. Sept. 29, 1976) 37
122 Cong. Rec. (daily ed. Oct. 1, 1976) 33, 34, 36, 37
BOOKS AND ARTICLES:
De^'elopments in the Law — Section 1983 and Fed-
eralism, 90 Harv. L. Rev. 1133 (1977) 39
vu
175
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES— Continued
Page
N. Lasson, The History and Development of the
Fourth Amendment to the United States Consti-
tution (1937) 11
McCormack & Kirkpatrick, Immunities of State
Officials Under Section 1983, 8 Rut. Cam. L. J.
65 (1976) 40,41
A. Meiklejohn, Free Speech (1948) 14
Note, Attorneys' Fees and the Eleventh Am,end'
ment, 88 Harv. L. Rev. 1875 (1975) 40,41
Note, The Federal Injunction as a Remedy for Un-
e<mstitutional Conduct, 78 Yale L. J. 143 (1968) .. 41
Note, Search and Seizure of the Media: A Statu-
tory, Fourth Amendment and First Amendment
Analysis, 28 Stan. L. Rev. 957 (1976). 12,18
Stewart, "Or of the Press," 26 Hastings L. J. 631
(1975) „ _ 15
86 Harv. L. Rev. 1317 (1973) ." 32
MISCELLANEOUS:
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
Rule 26 _ __ _„ 20
Rule 34 __ „ 20
Rule 37 â„¢ 20
28 C.F.R. § 50.10 (1976) .„ 14, 15
IV Press Censorship Newsletter (1974) 12
VI Press Censorship Newsletter (1975) 12, 13
viu
176
In The
October Term, 1977
Nos. 76-1484, 76-1600
James Zurcher, et al,
Petitioners,
V«
The Stanford Daily, et cd.,
Respondents.
Louis P. Bergna, et al,
Petitioners,
V •
The Stanford Daily, et al,
Respondents.
On Writs of Certiorari to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE
THE REPORTERS COMMITTEE THE STUDENT PRESS LAW
FOR freedom of THE PRESS CENTER
THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPER THE SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL
PUBLISHERS ASSOCL\TION JOURNALISTS (SIGi>L\ DELTA
THE NATIONAL NEWSPAPER CHI)
ASSOCIATION THE NEWSPAPER GUILD
THE NATIONAL ASS0CL4TI0N (AFL-CIO)
OF BROADCASTERS THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TELEVISION AND RADIO
NEWSPAPER EDITORS ARTISTS (AFL-CIO)
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS THE CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER
MANAGING EDITORS PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION
THE RADIO-TELEVISION NEWS
DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION
177
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether the First Amendment permits police offi-
cers to perform a surprise search of a news organization's
offices, without notice or opportunity to raise a judicial
challenge, where there is no showing that the news organi-
zation is involved in criminal activity or is likely to de-
stroy evidence in its possession.
2. Whether the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards
Act of 1976 authorizes an award of fees to a news organi-
zation that has successfully vindicated its First Amend-
ment rights in a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
This Brief Amicus Curiae is submitted with the con-
sent of the parties by :
The Reporters Committee for
Freedom of the Press
The American Newspaper Publishers
Association
The National Newspaper Association
The National Association of
Broadcasters
The American Society of Newspaper
Editors
The Associated Press Managing
Editors
The Radio-Television News Directors
Association
The Student Press Law Center
The Society of Professional Journalists
(Sigma Delta Chi)
178
The Newspaper Guild U\FL-CIO)
The American Federation of Television
and Radio Ai^tists (AFL-CIOj
The California Newspaper Publishers
Association
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
is a legal research and defense fund organization estab-
lished to protect the First Amendment interests of the
working press. Its members include news reporters ac-
tive in both the written and broadcast media.
The American Newspaper Publishers Association
(**ANPA"j is a nonprofit membership corporation, whose
more than 1,250 member newspapers constitute over
90 percent of the total daily and Sunday newspaper
circulation, and a significant portion of the weekly news-
paper circulation, in the United States. Concerned with
issues of general significance to the profession of journal-
ism and the newspaper publishing business, ANPA seeks
to keep its members informed of, and to provide mean-
ingful input on, matters touching on these concerns. In
that regard, the Association's member newspapers, indi-
vidually and through the ANPA, seek both to protect the
public's right under the First Amendment to information
concerning the activities of government and matters of
public interest, and to maintain the primary function of
newspapers: the gathering of information for dissemina-
tion to the people.
The National Newspaper Association is a national or-
ganization of 6,500 newspapers with members in all 50
states. Its purpose is to pi-eserve the constitutional guar-
antee of freedom of the press.
The National Association of Broadcasters is a non-
profit, incorporated association of radio and television
broadcast stations and networks. As of December 2,
179
1977, NAB's membership included 2504 AM radio sta-
tions, 1857 FM radio stations, 548 television stations,
and all nationwide commercial broadcast networks. The
object of NAB, according to its by-laws:
". . . shall be to foster and promote the development
of the arts of aural and visual broadcasting in all its
fonns; to protect its members in every lawful and
proper manner from injustices and unjust exactions;
to do all things necessary and proper to encourage
and promote customs and practices which will
strengthen and maintain the broadcasting industry
to the end that it may best serve the public."
Among NAB's primary concerns is maintaining the vi-
tality of the First Amendment guarantee of "freedom of
the press."
The American Society of Newspaper Editors is a
nationwide professional organization of more than 800
persons who are directing editors of daily newspapers
throughout the United States. The purposes of the So-
ciety, which was founded more than 50 years ago, in-
clude the maintenance of the ''dignity and rights of the
profession."
The Associated Press Managing Editors is an organi-
zation of 600 editors of newspapers affiliated with the
Associated Press, which is the largest news collection
organization in the world and is cooperatively owned by
its member newspapers. It is extremely interested in
First Amendment problems and has been active in many
ways to further the news-gathering interest of the press.
The Radio-Television News Directors Association is a
nonprofit professional organization of journalists. It in-
cludes approximately 1,300 members who are active in
the supernsion, reporting, and editing of news and other
information broadcast by the national networks and by
local radio and television stations throughout the United
States.
180
The Student Press Law Center is the only national
organization devoted exclusively to protecting the First
Amendment rights of the nation's high school and college
press. The Center, which is cosponsored by the Reporters
Committee and the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial, pro-
vides direct legal assistance to high school and college
students suffering First Amendment violations. The
Center also serves as a national clearinghouse to collect
and distribute information on the First Am.endment rights
of the student press.
The Newspaper Guild ("TNG") is an international
labor organization, affiliated with the AFL-CIO and the
Canadian Labour Congress, that represents some 40,000
persons employed principally by newspapers, magazines,
and broadcasting companies in the United States, Canada,
and Puerto Rico. TNG has been and continues to be ac-
tively involved and interested in protecting and preserv-
ing the First Amendment rights of its members.
The American Federation of Television and Radio
Artists, AFL-CIO, is a labor union with a membership of
30,000, including all radio and television network news
correspondents and reporters and the vast majority of
correspondents and reporters employed at local radio and
tele\isIon stations in the United States. This union has
long engaged in efforts to secure the efficacy and service
of electronic journalism against inroads on First Amend-
ment rights and the right of the people to see and hear
the news.
The Society of Professional Journalists (Sigma Delta
Chi) is the largest, oldest, and most representative or-
ganization serving the field of journalism. It has 27,000
professional members in print and broadcast journalism
and the teaching of journalism and another 7,000 campus
members. The society's objective is "to vrork to safe-
guard the flow of information from all sources to the
181
public so that it has access to the truths required to
make democracy function and to protect our fi^eedoms."
The California Newspaper Publishers Association is an
organization of 454 daily and weekly newspapers of gen-
eral circulation. Founded in 1927, the association has
long been interested in First Amendment and freedom of
information problems as they relate to the press and has
been active in both the legislature and the courts in
these areas.
Amici have a vital interest in the resolution of the
question whether the First Amendment protects news
organizations against surprise searches that would ser-
iously hinder their function of gathering and disseminat-
ing the news. Amici also have a vital interest in the
availability of attorneys' fees awards to members of the
press who successfully sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to
vindicate their rights under the First, Fourth, and Four-
teenth Amendments.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The facts, stated more fully in respondents' brief, are
as follows :
In April 1971, a political sit-in demonstration oc-
curred at the Stanford University Hospital in Palo Alto.
The Stanford Daily, an independent student-published
nev/spaper, had reporters and photographers at the sit-
in, during which several police officers allegedly were as-
saulted in a scuffle with the demonstrators.
Several days later, without notice to or prior demand
on the newspaper, police officers appeared at the news-'
paper's offices with a search warrant issued by the local
municipal court. The police had explained to the issuing
judge that the reason for the search was that they be-
lieved the newspaper possessed unpublished photographs
that would be helpful in identifying persons who allegedly
caui-ed the disorders at the hospital.
182
There was no claim that any of the newspaper's staff
participated in the disorders. Nor was there any claim
that the Daily would destroy the photographs if the
police sought them by subpoena instead of by a surprise
search. And there was no claim that the police had
tried to identify the troublemakers by questioning or
arranging for subpoenas to be served on the dozens of
non-press witnesses, demonstrators, and hospital em-
ployees at the scene.
The police entered the newspaper's offices and ex-
amined the contents of filing cabinets, desks, shelves, and
wastebaskets. They inspected reporters' confidential
notes, unpublished film, and other internal newsroom
inform.ation, some of which had been received in con-
fidence and involved news stories unrelated to the hos-
pital incident.
The search did not produce the unpublished photos
sought by the police. The Stanford Daily then filed this
action for declaratory and injunctive relief.
The courts below held that the search of the Daily's
offices was invalid under the First and Fourth Amend-
ments. They ruled that the police must give a news
organization notice, through a subpoena, and an oppor-
tunity to litigate the request, before compelling the dis-
closure of confidential materials. And the courts awarded
the plaintiffs $47,000 in attorneys' fees.
The law enforcement officers sought review in this
Court, which granted certiorari.
INTRODUCTION AND SUIVIMARY OF ARGUiMENT
This case is of extreme importance to the press and
all of us who benefit from freedom of the press. This
Court has been asked to rule that law enforcement
officials armied with ex parte search warrants may per-
183
form surprise searches of news media not suspected of
any crime, without notice or opportunity to raise a
judicial challenge. The Court is asked to permit law
enforcement officials to rifle through desks, files, unpub-
lished photos, confidential notes and internal correspon-
dence, and other news-gathering material protected by
the First Amendment in a search for any item specified
in a warrant, without the procedural guarantees that
the First Amendment requires.
The press in this case is not arguing that it has an
absolute pri\^ege to withhold information. It is seeking
the modest assurance that law enforcement officers de-
manding news-gathering material from a news organiza-
tion, not suspected of any crime, follow procedures that
give advance notice of the effort to seize the information
and an opportunity to appear in court to contest the
seizure on both First Amendment and other grounds.
The povv'er to perform surprise searches of news of-
fices, if confirm.ed, would deprive the press of any op-
portunity to have its First Amendment interests balanced
against asserted law enforcement needs — an opportunity
required by Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) —
because law enforcement officers would already have seen
or seized the protected material. Such searches would
severely impair the ability of the press to gather and
disseminate news, and physically disrupt its operations.
This Court's decisions make clear that such an intrusion
on First Amendment interests will not be tolerated,
where, as here, law enforcement officers can accomplish
their purposes through less intrusive procedures allow-
ing notice and opportunity for a hearing.
Moreover, surprise searches of news offices thwart the
str.tutory protections expressly m.ade available to the
press by reporters' privilege \s.v*s in California ar.d 25
other o';ates. Many of these laws were passed in direct
response to this Courtis suggestion in Branzhvrci v.
8
184
Hayes, supra, 408 U.S. at 706 (1972), that appropriate
protection for confidential press sources could be fash-
ioned by legislation. These "shield" laws generally pro-
tect the press against forced disclosure of confidential
information when the information is sought by subpoena.
Neither the Branzburg Court nor the state legislatures
conceived of the possibility that such laws could be evaded
by resort to a search warrant, enabhng the police to
descend on news offices without notice, to seize confiden-
tial information, and thus to destroy any opportunity for
the invocation of state shield laws or any other constitu-
tional protection against compelled disclosure.
The second question in this case is equally important.
As Mr. Justice Brennan observed in his concurring opin-
ion in Nebraska Press Association V. Stuart, 427 U.S.
539, 608 n.35 (1976), the legal costs involved in litigat-
ing First Amendment cases can be considerable, and
even prohibitive, for a small publisher.^
Congress had this problem in mind when it passed the
Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42
U.S.C. S 1988. Congress passed that Act because of its
concern that persons with limited financial resources
would hesitate to vindicate their federal constitutional
rights unless they were given some possibility of being
made whole again if their claims prevailed. Indeed, the
award of fees to the Stanford Daily in this very case was
mentioned approvingly in the legislative history of the
Act, making it clear that Congress intended to include
the press among those encouraged to vindicate constitu-
tional rights through litigation. Petitioners' attack on
the attorneys' fees award is entirely foreclosed by the
Act and its legislative history.
^ The costs to the press association of litigating that case exceeded
$100,000, far beyond its ability to pay. See Appendix A to this
Brief.
185
ARGUMENT
I. THE COURTS BELOW CORRECTLY HELD THAT
THE SEARCH OF THE STANFORD DAILTS
OFFICES WAS INVALID ABSENT OPPORTUNITY
FOR A PRIOR ADVERSARY HEARING.
In Branzhurg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), this
Court declined to establish an absolute privilege for news-
men generally to withhold information that is lawfully
sought by a grand jury. The Court noted the deep-
seated historical reluctance of the courts to create new
testimonial privileges. It observed that
"the common law recognized no such privilege, and
the constitutional argument was not even asserted
until 1958. From the beginning of our country, the
press has operated without constitutional protection
for press informants, and the press has flourished.
The existing constitutional rules have not been a
serious obstacle to either the development or reten-
tion of confidential news sources by the press." ^
In marked contrast, the surprise search of press of-
fices that occurred in this case has no such historical
roots; nor will the procedural safeguards that respond-
ents seek — the very safeguards present in Branz-
hiirg — deprive "the public [of its] . . . right to every
man's evidence." ^ The undisputed affidavit testimony
of experienced journalists in this case indicates that the
search of the Stanford Daily^s offices for unpublished
news-gathering materials may be unprecedented in our
2 408 U.S. at 698-99 (footnote omitted) . See also id. at 690 & n.29.
•■' Id. at 688, quoting United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 331
(1950).
10
186
nation's constitutional history.' That testimony is con-
firmed by the absence of any reported case before this
one concerning such a dragnet search against the press. '
If the 1971 search at the Stanford Daily was the
first of its kind, however, there are disturbing signs that
the practice it launched is growing in popularity.
Since 1971, there have been at least six other known
searches directed against newspapers and broadcast sta-
tions. The basic facts of these cases were similar: The
searches were authorized by warrants that were issued
ex parte and usually executed without notice or oppor-
tunity for a prior adversary hearing before an impartial
judicial officer. The warrants sought evidence in the
form of photographs, outtakes, notes, or other informa-
tion acquired in the process of gathering the news. So
far as we are aware, the applications for w-arrants made
no allegations that the press targets were suspected of
any crime, or that the targets were likely to destroy
the materials if given notice that the materials were
sought. While the items sought were particularly de-
scribed, execution of the warrants permitted extensive
* E.g., Affidavit of Frank P. Haven [managing^ editor, Los Angeles